Comenius, Property Rights, and Life in Common
By John Taylor; 2009 Mar 12, 'Ala 13, 165 BE
I just listened to a podcast of the BBC program In Our Time about the recovery efforts after the 1665 Great Fire of London. As the historians interviewed here explain, there arose two schools of thought after virtually nuclear destruction had all but devastated the center of the city. One side, including the architect Sir Christopher Wren, itched to rebuild from scratch, while the property-owners, including some of my own ancestors perhaps, wanted to follow the old street plan. The latter won out, and the In Our Time historians had high praise for the order and discipline with which the fire courts took on a very daunting task.
I was reminded of the very strong emphasis that the Aqdas gives to property rights in the Aqdas. Surely there is a divine wisdom in keeping ownership sacred. Yet we are told that Baha'u'llah wrote this law because the Baha'is in Baghdad and Teheran had become so spiritual that they were keeping property in common. Abdu'l-Baha speaks of these early believers becoming so God-intoxicated after spending their days in the Presence of Baha'u'llah that they forgot whose shoes and coats were whose, and simply left them by the door for the next person to take. This was evidently the case with the early Christians, when the Christ spirit shone at its purest among them.
"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (Acts 4:31-32, KJV)
Usually we worldlings respect other peoples' property out of fear of human sanctions, but among the Christian the fear was of God. And since the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, they wisely ceased to worry about who owned what piece of property among themselves.
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2:42-45, KJV)
No doubt the glory of this communal life encouraged the Christians to institutionalize and perpetuate it in the form of monasticism. But love cannot be put in a box. This led to one of the most persistent, anti-social strains of corruption in that religion.
Still, it is surely one of the greatest proofs of a Manifestation of God that people with no other bond than that of belief can be made to share meals, and eventually everything together without disputes or disharmony. The continuance of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, through the last supper to the love feasts and indeed to our 19 Day Feast today is testament to the power of God to unite us in meals both physical and heavenly.
The Moravian Brotherhood of Christ, the sect for which Comenius served as a bishop, also took "all things in common" as their basic creed. As Murphy points out, they "sought to promote the spirit of brotherly cooperation and a sharing of all material resources amongst their own communities, hoping thereby to provide an example of Christian responsibility to others." (Murphy, Daniel, Comenius, A Critical Reassessment, 146-147) Unlike most of their co-religionists, they were strictly pacifist, anti-dogmatic and ecumenical in their outlook. Murphy points out the difference between their "holding things in common," done out of brotherly love, and the violent, angry, secular communism that arose two centuries later.
"Unlike the socialists of later years, however, Comenius saw this being achieved, not through a process of radical political change, but by a process of individual self-reform initiated by every person in the privacy of his own conscience and, by extension, in the conduct of all aspects of his daily life. Social reform, he suggests, is rooted in self-reform; it is achieved not through radical political action but as a natural outcome of the genuine practice of Christian love." (Murphy, Daniel, Comenius, A Critical Reassessment, 148)
Murphy mentions the fanatical socialists in Anna Karenina and Resurrection who devote themselves to an abstract, generalized ideal while being harsh and insensitive to their immediate circle of family, friends and acquaintances, as well as Dostoevsky's parable of a socialist doctor who loves mankind but hates his neighbour. These are the reverse of the religious approach to communal life. Religion, in other words, always starts first with the individual's search for reality. Only when they see God and express it in direct contact with others do believers consider themselves lovers of mankind. As Comenius puts it,
"For every man will understand that the welfare of each individual (including his own) depends upon the welfare of all." (Comenius, Via Lucis, qi Murphy, Daniel, Comenius, A Critical Reassessment, 147)
That very eloquently explains why truly religious persons could never corrupt themselves by joining a party. A partisan is on one side of a two sided or many-sided fight over truth. A believer holds all mankind before One God, Who loves us all. God is the one truth, and beyond that there is naught but error.
Let me close with a passage from the famous parable of Comenius that Murphy chooses to illustrate this aspect of Comenius's "communism."
==========
From: The Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the Heart
==========
"As regards possessions, I saw that, though most of them were poor, had but little of the things that the world calls treasures, and cared but little for them, yet almost everyone had something that was his own. But he did not hide this, nor conceal it from the others (as is the world's way); he held it as in common, readily and gladly granting and lending it to him who might require it.
"Thus they all dealt with their possessions not otherwise than those who sit together at one table deal with their utensils of the table, which all use with equal right. Seeing this, I thought with shame that with us everything befalls in contrary fashion. Some fill and overfill their houses with utensils, clothing, food, gold and silver, as much as they can, meanwhile others, who are equally servants of God, have hardly wherewith to clothe and feed themselves.
"But, I must say, I understood that this was by no means the will of God; rather is it the way of the world, the perverse world, that some should go forth in festive attire, others naked; that some should belch from overfilling, while others yawn from hunger; some should laboriously earn silver, some vainly squander it; some make merry, others wail.
"Thence there sprung up among the one, pride and contempt of the others; and among these again, fury, hatred and misdeeds. But here there was nothing such. All were in community with all; indeed, their souls also." (Labyrinth, qi: Comenius, Via Lucis, qi Murphy, Daniel, Comenius, A Critical Reassessment, 147)
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment